Transcript Alcohol and greenhouse gas emissions: exploring the

Food and Climate Change
The world on a plate
Tara Garnett
Food Climate Research Network
This presentation
• Climate change: an overview
• Food & its contribution to climate changing
emissions by life cycle & food type
• Specific issues: transport, refrigeration, waste,
health
• Climate change & its impact on food supply chains
• How might we reduce food chain emissions?
• What’s going on? Government & industry
• Observations & conclusions
• About the Food Climate Research Network
1. Climate change:
an overview
The facts
• Latest (2007) IPCC report:
• ‘Warming of the climate system is
unequivocal…’
• Most of the observed increase in globally
averaged temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely [over 90% certainty]
due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations
Climate change…
• Temperature increase of 0.74ºC in last
100 years
• 11 of last 12 years have been the warmest
on record
• Warming of oceans
• Faster than average warming in Arctic
What is more…
• Under BAU temperatures to rise by about 3°C
by 2100 (range: 2 to 4.5°C ).
• 2°C rise = ‘dangerous climate change’
• We’re already ‘committed’ to 1°C rise even if we
stop producing any more GHGs right now.
• We need to achieve 80% not 60% cuts by 2050
• UK not meeting our CO2 reduction targets
• Will EU meet its 2012 Kyoto target (8% cut)?
Defining terms
GHGs = greenhouse gas emissions
CO2 the main GHG but…
…others also important especially for food
• Methane 23 x greater global warming potential than CO2
• Nitrous oxide 296 x greater global warming potential than CO2
• Refrigerant gases thousands of times greater than CO2
2. Overall food related GHG
emissions
Need to consider emissions at
all stages
Need to consider emissions at all stages in the food chain:
• Agriculture
• Manufacturing
• Refrigeration
• Transport
• Packaging
• Retail
• Home
• Waste
They all affect one another
A typical food LCA diagram
Source: http://www-mat21.slu.se/publikation/pdf/Programplan2004.pdf
Overall food-related contribution to
GHG emissions
• EU EIPRO report: 31% all EU consumption
related GHGs
• FCRN UK estimates: around 19% (probably an
underestimate) - Defra estimates similar
• World agriculture contribution – 17 - 32% total
global emissions
• Huge uncertainty / variability between countries /
differences in what’s included and what’s not
UK GHG emissions – how does food
contribute?
Fertiliser
manufacture
1.0%
Agriculture
7.4%
Non food
81.3%
FCRN work in progress 2007
Food
manufacturing
2.2%
Packaging
(incomplete
data)
0.9% Transport incl
overseas
2.5%
Home food
related
2.1%
Retail
0.9%
Catering
1.5%
Waste disposal
0.3%
The GHG ‘hotspots’ vary by food
1. Agriculture
Meat & dairy; glasshouse veg
2. Manufacture
Bread baking
3. Storage
Frozen peas or potatoes
4. Transport
Anything airfreighted eg. berries
5. Cooking
Baked potato, pasta, tea, coffee
6. Packaging
Small bottle of beer
7. Waste
Fruit & veg
And there are real difficulties drawing
meaning from your measurements
For example:
•
Relative contribution: Eg. Banana transport emissions
greater than strawberries since we eat more of them
but flown-in strawberries are more GHG intensive by
volume. Policy implications?
•
Specific behaviour: farmer, consumer – huge
variations How do you address this?
•
What’s the functional unit? Emissions per KG? vit C?
pleasure? What do you want to achieve?
•
System boundaries: Farm machinery? How employee
travelled to work? When does food end and
everything else begin?
•
The existing infrastructure eg. Refrigeration: If the
fridge is on whether the peas are in there or not can
we really attribute refrigeration emissions to those
peas? And what does it mean for the consumer?
Impacts by food type:
FCRN work so far
• Meat and dairy – about 8%
• Fruit and veg - about 2.5%
• Alcoholic drinks – about 1.5%
• This is of the UK’s TOTAL GHG emissions
• Similar to this Dutch study…
Contribution of food groups to Dutch
GHG emissions KG/CO2e
Klaas Jan Kramer, Henri C Moll, Sanderine Nonhebel,
Harry C Wilting, Greenhouse gas emissions related to
Dutch food consumption, Energy Policy 27 (1999)
203-216, Elsevier Publications
Dairy, 22.9
Other food
products, 3
Bread,
pastry &
flour, 13.3
Potatoes,
fruit & veg,
14.6
Oils & fats,
3
Meat, meat
products &
fish, 28.2
Beverages
& products
containing
sugar, 14.9
Food impacts by type: Fruit &
vegetables
• GHG contributions approx 2.5% total
• Trends: increasing consumption of GHG
intensive produce:
– Air freighted
– Unseasonal protected
– Pre-prepared
– Fragile / spoilable
Key impact areas
• Transport
– 1.5% f&v air freighted, accounting for 40 – 50% total
f&v transport emissions
– Air freight growing rapidly
• Refrigeration
– from post harvest  home
– Trade offs AND synergies with transport
• Waste
– Approx 25% fruit and veg wasted – most at domestic
stage
– Supply chain demands make waste inevitable
Less GHG intensive produce
• Seasonal and field grown: no heating;
fewer ‘tradeoffs’
• Robust (less need for rapid transport, less
prone to waste, less temp critical?)
Food impacts by type: Alcoholic
drinks
• Contributes around 1.5% UK total
• Not much difference between types
• Hotspots: hospitality sector, transport,
packaging
• Lack of data
Relative contribution of stages to
beer emissions (draft & packaged)
100%
90%
80%
47.90
70%
Consumption
60%
Transport
Packaging production
50%
40%
Brew ing
20.88
Malting
Agriculture
30%
11.48
20%
10.0
10%
0%
4.21
5.81
Relative contribution of stages to
wine emissions
100%
90%
22.73
80%
70%
Consumption
60%
34.90
Transport
50%
Packaging
production
40%
17.45
30%
20%
10%
0%
24.93
Total agriculture and
alcohol production
Relative contribution of stages to
spirit emissions
100%
90%
19.14
80%
70%
19.18
Consumption
60%
50%
Transport
Packaging production
19.18
Distilling
Malting
40%
30%
Agriculture
23.02
20%
10%
0%
2.49
16.98
Trends:
• More wine: relative importance of transport
to grow?
• More chilled: cold lagers, cider over ice,
chilled wine, spirit mixers
• More in-home: more single serve
packages
• Hospitality sector??
• More drinking
Scope for reduction?
• Brewing / distilling: progress being made
• Packaging: lightweighting (but little recycling
from pubs etc.)
• Hospitality sector: no policy focus here yet (but
this is changing – more later)
• Consumption: adherence to Dept of Health recs
would lead to 18% reduction in consumption.
BUT
– Rebound effect
– International trade
Food impacts by type: Meat & dairy
• Global – 18% global emissions (FAO 2006)
• EU – 15% EU emissions or 50% of all
food impacts (EIPRO 2006)
• Dutch study: 50% of all food impacts
• UK (from FCRN study):
– 6.6% production related GHG emissions
(NETCEN & other)
– 8% consumption emissions (Cranfield plus
volumes based on MLC & Defra)
Projected global trends in meat
& dairy demand
500
Poultry takes
biggest share of
growth
450
Million tonnes
400
350
Developing countries meat
300
Developing countries milk
250
Developed countries meat
200
Developed countries milk
150
100
50
0
1980
1990
2002
Year
Source: FAO 2006
2015
2030
But per capita developing world demand still
lower than developed world (IFPRI 2001)
But
• We have to eat – there’ll always be an
impact
• Livestock production yields food and non
food benefits – they ‘save’ having to
produce them by other means
• Some livestock rearing utilises
unproductive land & by-products
• Would non-animal substitutes be any
better for GHG emissions?
To understand why the impacts
arise and how/whether they can
be reduced you need to look at
• The inputs to the production system and
GHG implications
• The outputs from the system and GHG
implications
Different systems have different
inputs & outputs
Dairy bulls
Dairy cows
Beef bulls
Suckler cows
Suckler bull calves
Dairy bull calves
Dairy replacement
heifer calves
calves
MILK
MEAT
Beef bulls
Dairy cows
Crossbreed calves
male and female
Suckler heifer
calves
Livestock system inputs
• Cereals: How much? Alternative
uses (food, biofuel)?
• Oilseeds: Second order impacts?
Relationship between cake and oil?
• Grazing land: Inputs to? Alternative
uses? Benefits of?
• By-products: Alternative uses?
• Land: What’s the best way of using
the land for most output at least
GHG cost?
• Energy: on farm and indirect
• What are the
second order
impacts eg.
Lost carbon
sequestration
from land
clearance?
• What is the
opportunity cost
– could these
inputs be used
in other ways?
Livestock system outputs
• Nutrition: protein, calcium, iron, B12, fat…
• Leather & wool
• Rendered products: glues, soaps, pet
food…
• Manure: nutrients and soil quality
• Soil carbon sequestration
• Landscape aesthetics & biodiversity
Questions
• What benefits do we gain from livestock
production?
• Are these benefits accurately accounted
for in life cycle analysis?
• How much do we need these products?
– (who defines need?)
• To what extent can we obtain these goods
/ services by non livestock means and
what would the GHG implications be?
General conclusions on meat,
dairy and nutrition
•
•
•
•
•
Good source of calcium, iron & Vit B12
Not so important for protein
Provides fat in excess
Livestock products not essential
But useful in small quantities esp. for
vulnerable groups
• Different issues for rich in developed world
and extremely poor in developing world
Non food benefits
• Leather: useful byproducts but not
‘needed’ at current levels (but developing
world industries)
– Comes with own environmental downsides
• Wool: v. small textile player
• Rendered products: are we making the
most efficient use of the carcass?
Manure
• Costs & benefits
– Avoids need for mineral fertilisers (although
harder to optimise input levels)
– Contributes to soil quality / carbon
sequestering properties of soil
– Leads to methane and nitrous oxide
emissions
Soil carbon sequestration,
biodiversity & aesthetics
(grazing land)
• Pasture land important for carbon
sequestration & biodiversity
• But 20% land degraded by overgrazing
worldwide (73% in dry areas)
• Hence carbon losses and decline in
biodiversity
Mitigation: relative importance
of different gases - GWP
Source: Williams AG (2007) per comm. Based on Williams, A.G., Audsley, E.
and Sandars, D.L. (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and
resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities.
Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205.
Mitigation options
1. Husbandry (feed, breed etc)
2. Changing management (organic vs non
organic, intensive vs extensive)
3. Managing outputs (manure)
4. Changing numbers
In the context of
• Framing issues: Animal welfare,
biodiversity, long term soil quality and soil
carbon storage, rural economy
• Managing trade offs: With other social /
environmental concerns & pollution
swapping
• Land use: Need to consider the
opportunity cost of using land for one
purpose over another
GHGS: Foods with major impacts
• Meat and dairy
– 8% + UK estimate
– 13.5% total EU GHG emissions (half of all food
emissions): could we get our protein / iron / calcium /
shoes /warm jumpers / glues in other ways?
– FAO estimates livestock =18% global GHG emissions
• Certain kinds of fruit and vegetables
– Veg diets not always better
• ‘Unnecessary’ foods and drinks – alcohol,
beverages, confectionary
– Whose needs? Who defines them? (more later)
3. Specific issues:
Transport, refrigeration,
waste, health
Transport: What about food miles?
• 2.5 – 3.5% of UK GHG emissions (incl imports)
• Is nearer better? It depends….
• There are trade-offs to consider
– Eg. agricultural production, manufacturing efficiency,
energy mix, cold storage, waste
• On the other hand…relationship between transport
distance & refrigeration, & waste
• Structural impacts on economy and infrastructure
investment
• Conflicting demands on land eg. biofuels. What
should we use our land for?
• ‘Answer’ now might be different to ‘answer’ in 5 – 10
years time
What about air freight?
• The most GHG intensive form of transport
• Less than 1% all food carried by air but = 11%
total food transport CO2 (including car trips)
• 1.5% fruit and veg carried by air but accounts for
40% total f&v transport CO2
• Kenyan green beans 20-26 times more GHG
intensive than seasonal UK beans
Air freight continued….
• Absolute impacts small but in relative terms
growing – and it subsidises passenger air travel
• The greater the volume, the cheaper it is to fly
food
• Food is the fastest growing air freighted
commodity
• Might climate change increase use of air freight
(variability of supply leads to more use of
emergency ‘top ups’)?
Is air always the worst option?
Sometimes other options can be more GHG
intensive (eg. hothouse flowers in Feb from
Holland compared with those from Kenya)
BUT
This doesn’t meant that air freight is ‘okay’
It just means that both have very high
impacts!
However…air freight and
developing countries
Contribution of SSA countries to total non-EU fruit
and veg air freighted imports:
• Kenya 22%
• S Africa 6%
• Ghana 6%
• Zimbabwe 3.6%
Of top 20 air freight importers by volume, almost all
less developed countries
1-1.5 mill people dependent on export horticulture
• in SSA (up to 120,000 directly employed)
• Lives depend upon it – some excellent projects
• Joined up Govt policy implication?
Food refrigeration & GHGs
Refrigeration Carbon
Contribution to UK
life cycle
emissions GHG (total 179 MTCe)
stage
MT
Manufacturing
0.28
0.18%
Food retail &
catering
Domestic
UK total
1.46
0.97%
1.9
3.64
1.24%
2.39%
Embedded impacts from imports & emissions from
mobile refrigeration not included. IF THEY WERE....
Then overall refrigeration GHGs
3-3.5% of UK total
• Total food related GHGs around 19-20%
• Food refrigeration = 17-18% all food
GHGs
Reducing impacts:
How far will technology get us?
• Savings between 20-50% possible
• Novel technologies eg. trigeneration
• Institutional inertia & short term costing
• Policies in place / being developed
• Masses of advice
But we now live in a refrigeration
dependent society: Why?
• Changes in foods & drinks we buy
• Changes in how we live our lives
–
–
–
–
–
Economic changes
Weekly shopping
Women
Lifestyles
Housing design/ temperatures
• Infrastructure development stimulates cold food
manufacturing which stimulates infrastructure
investment – and reinforces behavioural norms
Refrigeration
infrastructure
Socioeconomic
changes
Food transport
Food
innovations
Refrigeration
dependence
Packaging
Future refrigeration trends?
Some projections  refrig. emissions set to
decline. But:
• A warming climate? More dependency
• New product innovation?
– product/technology/behaviour interface
• Can’t look at refrigeration emissions alone:
– Nexus of transport, packaging, retail and IT
infrastructure within which refrigeration
technology is situated.
In short
• Refrigeration as marker of unsustainable
energy use?
– Nodal point of energy intensive
practices/behaviours
• Policies need to tackle not just
refrigeration energy use but refrigeration
dependency
A less refrigeration dependent food
chain
Foods
• Less meat and dairy
• Fewer ‘fragile’ foods
• More seasonal robust produce
More frequent shopping / cooking patterns
Optimum fridge size / level of infrastructure?
Food safety / waste - issues more nuanced than at first
appears.
Waste: why is it a problem for
food GHGs?
• Decomposing food generates methane
(small problem)
• Wasted food represents a waste of all the
emissions generated during the course of
growing, processing, storing, transporting,
retailing and cooking the food. (BIG
PROBLEM)
• Around1/3 food we eat is thrown away,
most of it edible.
The most wasted foods
• Top 5 waste categories: fruit and veg, meat and
fish, bakery, dairy, rice and pasta
• High waste foods = mostly also GHG intensive
• Most waste occurs at household stage – once food
has ‘embedded’ upstream GHG emissions
• BUT:
• If we waste less will we buy less? Will farmers grow
less? Will supermarkets sell less food & but more
GHG intensive? Or energy using non food
products? Will we export more / import less? What
are the policy implications? What action is needed?
What about organic?
• Many benefits to organic:
– Long term soil quality
– Biodiversity
• But it’s not always less GHG intensive
– Eg. Poultry
• ALTHOUGH it sometimes is!
• So how do you act consistently?
Is healthy food less GHG
intensive?
It depends…
Two balanced meals…
A ninefold GHG difference
Pork
Carrots
Rice
Potatoes
Dried peas
Tomatoes
Production of meal on the left is nine times less GHG intensive than
the one on the right
Carlsson-Kanyama A (1998) Climate change and dietary choices - how can
emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food
Policy, vol 23, no.3/4, pp.277-293
4. Impact of climate change
on the food system
Impacts on agriculture
Huge uncertainty... Impacts depend on
Interplay between:
•
•
•
•
•
Gradual temperature increase
CO2 effect
Wildcards (extreme drought, flooding)
Water
Economics, demographics, infrastructure
Impacts continued...
• May be positive in N. Countries up to 2050
- then negative
• Poor countries – negative and then more
negative
• Changes in crop suitability
• Crop and livestock diseases
• Water
• Poor will suffer most
The picture by 2050
Source: IPCC 2004 Wkg Gp II Ch5
Climate change – knock on effects
• If current sources no longer viable – need
to source from elsewhere (further?)
• Increasing reliance on emergency top ups
(by air)?
• Weather related spoilage / waste
Major commodity crops - impacts
– Wheat: North – South divide
– Rice: water shortages
– Cocoa: W. Africa – threat from drought
– Coffee: more vulnerable
– Wine grapes: water? Quality?
– Cane sugar: water
• Increased developing world dependence
on imports from developed world
Post harvest impacts
Food sourcing, processing and distribution
•
•
•
•
Disruptions to transport & stationary infrastructure
Unpredictability can lead to crop spoilage & waste
Changes in sourcing decisions?
More imports to developing world
Consumption
• Changes in consumer demand?
• Consequences for food industry & household
energy use?
• Food safety problems?
The CC context
• Physical effects of CC need to be seen in social,
economic, political, demographic and
infrastructural context – feedback interactions
• Climate change exacerbates existing
vulnerabilities of poor in developing world
• The more rapid the climate change the harder it
will be to adapt
• Poor farmers less likely to be able to adapt –
infrastructural, political, economic barriers
What might the impacts be for food
supply?
• Current sources no longer viable?
• More variability of supply?
• Challenges for transport / distribution
infrastructure
• The ‘right’ sourcing answer from a GHG
perspective depends on which part of the supply
chain cleans up its act / adapts first
• Impact of legislation may be more important in
the short term
5. Reducing food’s GHG
contribution
How far will technology get us?
• Agriculture: plant breeding; better nutrient use;
alternative fuel sources for greenhouses
• Manufacturing: CHP / trigeneration /
polygeneration / life cycle costing
• Refrigeration: 20-50% efficiency savings
possible; novel technologies including non HFC
refrigeration, trigeneration (increases efficiency
from 38% to 76%).
• Packaging: lightweighting, alternative materials,
ambient storage packaging
More technological options
• Transport: modal shift, efficient supply
chains; cleaner fuels (in future years)
• Retailing: massive scope for
improvements in lighting and refrigeration;
renewables
• Domestic: energy efficient appliances,
visible energy metering
• Lots of little impacts/solutions rather than
one big one
But
• Will this get us to an 80% cut by 2050?
• Technological improvements don’t address the
root problems of the way we consume
• And technology shapes behaviour, fostering new
(energy dependent) norms
• Two examples…
Eg.1: Ready meal vs home cooking
• Is the energy efficient ready meal the answer?






No trimmings or scraps: less waste
Production stage scraps can be used for animal feed
No packaging for individual ingredients
More efficient industrial ovens
Only transport what is eaten: less transport
Recent LCA showed little difference between home and ready-meal
But: complex multi-ingredient, elaborately prepared food
reliant on long supply chains and refrigeration becomes the
norm – triggering further innovations…problem exacerbated?
Eg. 2: Food waste: how to reduce?
• Wasted food = wasted CO2 + CH4
• One third food bought is not eaten
• The technology approach? Improve packaging,
portion size (no leftovers), extend food life span
to match our lifestyles? Keep food properly
refrigerated. Shrink-wrapped cucumber last
longer than unpackaged cucumber
• The behaviour approach? Plan your meals, shop
little and often, eat food soon after you’ve bought
it, use your leftovers, compost scraps, shared
living? Eat that cucumber sooner rather than
later!
What might a less GHG intensive
way of eating look like?
• Changing the balance of what we eat
– Less meat & dairy - lower down on food chain
• Seasonal field grown foods (less storage,
heating & transport)
– UK seasonal when possible
– Elsewhere seasonal when not
• Not eating certain foods
– Avoiding hothoused/air freighted produce (but
developing world?)
• Reducing dependence on cold chain
– Robust foods (including less processed)
– Frequent non car based shopping / frequent turnover
of food
Less GHG intensive eating
• But wasting less
– Eat what we buy, soon after we’ve bought it
– Accepting variability of quality and supply
• Efficient cooking
– Cook for more people and for several days
– Less use of oven
• Redefining quality
– Accepting different notions of quality
– Accepting more variability
How?
Life is complicated and
food is a complex part of life
Food and its meanings
Nurture
Entertainment
Neurosis
Guilt
Need
Pleasure
Ritual
Food
Habit
Social glue
Satisfaction
Love
Status
Power
Comfort
Time-pass
Bribery
Religious significance
Influenced by wider forces
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Price / affordability
Availability
Time – work / ‘stressed leisure’ syndrome
Culture, social & family expectations, norms, aspirations
Knowledge, information, fashions & beliefs (education,
media, marketing)
Demographic changes: ageing population, single person
society, wealth
Technological changes
Season
Tastes
Habits
What might this mean for the food
industry?
Consistency, choice, ubiquity, availability,
variety…
Versus
Less choice? More variability of quality? Non
availability? A move away from cheap meat?
From chilled foods….
You cannot wait for consumers
to change their behaviour
• They don’t know enough
• They don’t care enough
• Behaviour ‘lock-in’
• They won’t unless they have to... Govt and
industry must take the lead – change the
context of consumption
6. The policy context – global
and UK
The global context
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rising population – 9 billion by 2050
Increasing food / oil prices
Dash for biofuels
Nutrition transition
Land pressures
(Climate change legislation...)
A few framing policies/initiatives
•
•
•
•
Kyoto Protocol
Bali 2007 agreement on deforestation
EU Emissions Trading Scheme
European Commission Energy Policy
– 20% GHG cut by 2020 (should be 30%+)
– Biofuels 10% transport fuels by 2020
(criticisms)
• Biofuels support – EU, US
The UK context: the new
Climate Change Bill
• New UK Climate Change Bill – 60%
reduction by 2050 Targeted 5 yearly
‘budgets’ set at least 15 years ahead
• 26-32% cut by 2020
• This is good but we need 80-90% cuts to
keep emissions below 450ppm
• Target currently being reconsidered
Food/climate relevant legislation
and initiatives (UK)
• Climate Change Agreements
• Carbon Reduction Commitment (consultation)
• Food Industry Sustainability Strategy and ‘champions
groups’ recommendations
• Market Transformation Programme (radical
improvements in devt and uptake of energy efficient
technology)
• Cabon Trust advice and support
• Various Defra research programmes
• Product ‘road maps’ on reducing impacts (eg. dairy
products
• Developing consistent GHG labelling methodology (with
business and British Standards)
• Thinking about personal carbon allowances (could food
be incorporated into this?)
UK policy
• Is this enough? Little direct focus on
agriculture
• “Business running ahead of Government”
• Where is a coherent vision backed up with
a plan?
Government: Some policy tools
Regulation
Consumers
Legislation
Policy
instruments
Caps, quotas,
thresholds, bans
Economic and fiscal
Food industry
Voluntary agreements
Education, marketing &
promotion
Social pressure
What
measures
have
worked for
food & how
can we
strengthen
them?
Technological
change
& uptake
What new
measures
should we
be
considering?
7. What is the food industry
doing?
Some food industry initiatives agriculture
• Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (Nestle,
Unilever, Danone, Kraft etc.)
• EUREPGAP
• Roundtables on sustainable soy / palm oil
• Not specifically climate focused
Food industry initiatives: retailers
•
•
•
•
•
•
M & S:
£200 million ‘Plan A’
All operations carbon neutral by 2012
25% energy cut; power stores with green electricity
Label and reduce air freighted produce
Tesco:
– Label and reduce air freighted produce
– 50% energy cut in stores and DCs by 2020
– £100 million renewables fund
– Halve distribution emissions / case in 5 yrs
• Migros (Switzerland) – to introduce carbon labelling
• French and Australian announcements
Food industry initiatives: manufacturers
• Tate & Lyle: biomass boiler to replace 70% fossil
energy
• McCain's: up to 70% electricity needs from
renewables including wind turbines and CHP plant
running on biogas
• Cadbury’s: 50% absolute cut in carbon emissions
by 2020
• Many others starting to carbon footprint their
operations
• But focus of food industry is on efficiency rather
than shifts in consumption.
Policy & business limitations
• Reluctant to question core business principles of Choice,
Variety, Ubiquity, Repeatability, Convenience.
• And therefore scope for GHG reduction limited largely to
technological change
• And technological change alone creates further
behavioural changes
• Need not just to do things more efficiently but…
• …Sell / don’t sell different stuff - ‘choice editing’
8. Observations and
conclusions
Food’s impacts
• Climate change is happening
• Food contributes to a significant proportion of
global GHG emissions
• All stages in the supply chain contribute to
emissions
• Agriculture most significant stage / meat and
dairy most GHG intensive food
• Global food demand is moving in more GHG
intensive directions
• Climate change will affect global food
supply - poor regions will suffer most
• Technology unlikely to get us to an 80%
cut
• Consumption shifts needed too
• Policy and govt beginning to tackle
problem but only from ‘efficiency’
perspective
Some major concerns
• 9 billion people on planet in 2050
• Increase in numbers in absolute poverty AND
growing wealth in many parts of developing world
• The poor will suffer most from climate change
• An 80%+ cut in developed world GHGs needed
• Tackle problems in isolation or as a whole atomised vs synthetic approach?
Land – the big challenge
• In the context of 9 billion on planet by 2050
• What is the best use of global land so that:
– We are all fed adequately ...
– At minimum GHG cost?
– Stored carbon is not released?
– Biodiversity is protected?
– Other ethical non-negotiables upheld??
• Meeting Needs rather than demand - only
feasible approach
In other words....
• Land to feed animals or to feed humans?
• Land for feed production or for carbon
sequestration?
• Land for animal rearing or for biomass
production?
• We need to collaborate globally and think
strategically about how to make best use
of land. But how?
Some research challenges
• We need to:
• Gain ‘good enough’ understanding of where the problem
lies by particular food type
• Work out how far technology can get us
• Improve understanding on what sorts of consumption
patterns (in the context of these technology changes)
can help achieve reductions
• Understand more clearly how technological innovation
influences behaviour and vice versa
• Frame the climate change debate in the context of other
social, environmental and economic concerns
• LCA can inform policy but vagaries of consumer and
business behaviour ALSO need to inform LCA
9. About the FCRN
The FCRN: some context
Funded by UK research council www.epsrc.ac.uk
& based at
Surrey University (www.surrey.ac.uk)
The FCRN
Funded by UK research council www.epsrc.ac.uk
& based at Surrey University (www.surrey.ac.uk)
Focuses on:
• Researching food chain contribution to GHG
emissions and options for emissions reduction
• Sharing and communicating information on food
& climate change with 760 + member network
Research activities
• What are the GHG impacts of food?
• What do we know about ways of reducing
emissions, both technological &
behavioural?
• What don’t we know?
• What are the policy implications?
• What are the future research priorities?
FCRN outputs
1. Four comprehensive studies so far:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Fruit & vegetables
Alcoholic drinks
Food refrigeration
Meat & dairy
2. See here for publications
http://www.fcrn.org.uk/researchLib/index.ht
m
Communication & networking
Communicates information & fosters
knowledge-sharing to 760+ members
• Across disciplines
• Across sectors (eg. Govt, business, NGOs, academic)
How?
•
•
•
•
Mailing / newslist on food/climate issues
Runs seminars
Meetings & presentations
Website
Thank you and please join
Tara Garnett
[email protected]
www.fcrn.org.uk
Food Climate Research
Network